FaceDeer

No, governments like the UK are forcing this.

You see a false dichotomy.

I see someone pounding away at a ball of yarn with a hammer and complaining that it’s not as good a knitting implement as they imagined.

I’ve never seen anyone advertising an LLM as being good at spelling bees. The only time I ever see this spelling thing come up is when people are making fun of it.

An LLM also can’t bake a cake, decorate a Christmas tree, or bench-press 100kg.

Just understand what LLMs are good at, use them for that, and don’t throw your hands up and declare it useless because it can’t magically do something it was never designed to do in the first place.

Because LLMs see tokens, not letters or words. It’s like showing a human a strawberry and asking them how many atoms it contains.

The article literally references the legend of John Henry, yeah.

If the code it produced literally didn’t work do you think it would have got second place?

It’s almost as if this were a community where we discussed new technologies that are just emerging and haven’t become well-established yet.

An equally-true headline: “At last, a promising use for AI agents: debugging smart contract code.” The availability of this tool should make smart contracts more secure in the future, and cryptocurrency more reliable as a result.

If you asked “what do Holocaust deniers believe” I would expect answers like this.

Sure, not disputing that. I’m more annoyed by the double standard regarding his successful decisions.

What I mean is that when Musk-owned companies have successes people are very often quick to accuse him of “just hiring smart people” or “just buying a successful company.” It’s only when those companies have failures that he gets credit for being hands-on in their design decisions.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Elon Musk is a pretty terrible person both in terms of his personality and his politics. But pretty terrible people can nevertheless be smart and make good engineering decisions. Just look at von Braun as a prime example.

Always interesting to see the view of the degree of Elon Musk’s involvement in his companies’ decisions swing depending on whether the outcome is good or bad.

They are using them, however. They’re visiting websites with them, using apps with them, and so forth.

Perhaps be more succinct? You’re really flooding the zone here.

You have tunnel vision on this issue.

No, I’m staying focused.

That is absolutely ridiculous. The pressure AI scraping puts on sites vastly outstrips anything people built for, as evidenced by the fact that the systems are going down.

Yes. Which is why I’m suggesting providing an approach that doesn’t require scraping the site.

It’s ironic that you’re railing against capitalism while espousing exactly the sort of scarcity mindset that capitalism is rooted in, whereas I’m the one taking the “information wants to be free” attitude that would normally be associated with anti-capitalist mindsets.

Do you know how excited I was when LLM tech was announced? Do you know how much it sucked to realize, so soon, that companies were going to do their best to use it to optimize profits?

They do that with everything. Does that mean that everything must therefore become some kind of all-or-nothing battleground wherein companies must be thwarted?

It’s not as simple as, “Oh, you say that you believe in freedom of information, but curious how you don’t want private companies to use it to make money at your expense! Guess you’re a hypocrite.”

Emphasis added. That part is where you’re in error about my view, it’s not at my expense. It doesn’t harm me any.

Tell me what you actually believe, or stop cycling back to this like it’s a damning rebuttal.

I have been.

I’m not “taking their side.” I’m just not actively trying to harm them. The world is not a zero-sum game, it’s often possible for everyone to get what they want without harming each other in the process.

Yes, I know the companies are not the same as normal patrons. I don’t care that they’re not the same as normal patrons. All I’m concerned about is that the normal patrons get access to the data. The solution I proposed does that.

The problem, as I see it, is that’s not all that you are concerned about. Your goal also includes a second aspect; you want those companies to not have access to that data. So my proposal is not acceptable because it doesn’t thwart those companies.

I’m not drawing an equivalence between companies and individual patrons, I’m just saying my goals don’t include actively obstructing those companies. If they can get what they want without interfering with what the normal patrons want, why is that a bad thing?

Bandwidth can’t, though.

Bandwidth is incredibly cheap. The problem these sites are having is not running into bandwidth limits, it’s that providing the pages requires processing to generate them. That’s why Wikipedia’s solution works - they offer all the “raw” data in a single big archive, which takes just as much bandwidth to download but way fewer server resources to process (because there’s literally no processing - it’s just a big blob of data).

Is it okay to hire a bunch of people to check out half a library’s books, then rent them to people for money?

This analogy fails because, as I said, data can be duplicated easily. Making a copy of the data doesn’t obstruct other people from also viewing the data provided you avoid the sorts of resource bottlenecks I described above.

Is your problem really about the accessibility of this data? Or is it that you just don’t want those awful for-profit companies you hate to have access to it? I really get the impression that that’s the real problem here - people hate AI companies, and so a solution that gives everyone what they want is unacceptable because the AI companies are included in “everyone.”